Originally posted by nightsider2007
im sorry, but i have to say that the mans name is not "Roger Boscovich", its Ruđer Bošković.

Oh really? As you surely must know, the Republic of Ragusa, where this noted scientist was born and in whose diplomatic service he was employed from
time to time, was not identical to modern day Croatia which now includes the territory. It was a bilingual state where a dialect of italian was spoken
in addition to Shtokavian. Many Ragusan families had their names spelled in both.

Since Mr. Boscovich also spent a lot of time working in Vatican, he's known in Italy as Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich. Roger is just a French/English
equivalent of that. It funny that you have an issue with it.

that would be like calling Thomas Jefferson "Tomislav Đeferson", which is retarded...

Well probably not if Thomas was born and spent half his life in southern Slavic states

we dont translate american names

Well we sometimes do, so learn to live with it. Peter the Great was not really Peter but Pyotr, nobody makes fuzz about it. Catherine the Great was
not Catherine at all but Ekaterina. I haven't seen a single Russian complain about that.

so you can at least try to get croatian names right.

I could, but I'll stick with names found in Western literature, thank you.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Something one needs to keep in mind is that the "church" has always had a vested interest in declaring that the earth is the only planet with life
on it. So,this "revelation" is really not a revelation at all.

I thought the "modern" church, as well as other major religions to a greater or lesser degree, acknowledged that there may be life "out there".

I've seen quotes from Islamic scholars, who in turn have quoted the koran, saying that God/Allah states that there is other life elsewhere.

I was curious to discover why the origin of the idea that the Moon was made of cheese and reading Galileo's Siderius Nuncius[message from the stars]
provides the explanation.
Galileo refers to having seen 'holes' in the Moon thus was born the cheese myth.
Regards,
Hortsegiver.

Don't you implicitly assume that an atmosphere would have to be naturally (gravity) contained, therefore deep enough to become visible? if it's
artificial, a depth of 10 ft should suffice - for walking at least. such a thin sheet wouldn't be easily visible, but wouldn't protect against
radiation and particles either.... unless artificial means were used to that end as well.

of course, the entire moon might as well be concealed by a hologram, so why even bother with such claims?

Thanks BS. Good thread. We know that the cover up of the moon's breathable atmosphere goes way back in history. We know it went back to 1870 when
Rear Admiral Simon Newcomb of the U.S. Naval Observatory went to Europe to personally discredit decorated Danish mathematician and astronomer Peter
Andreas Hansen who proposed a lunar atmosphere.

Now with your help we have evidence that it went back as far as Boscovich which would place it in the middle 1700's.

It seems as though throughout history there has been a vested interest by someone in keeping secret the civilization on the moon along with its
gravity and atmosphere.

Since neither you or I have ever been there or are unlikely to go in our lifetimes so its unlikely either of us will be able to prove our stands.

You have some great theories, backed up with great mathematics and great laws of physics. But, so did Einstein when he proposed that nothing could
travel faster than the speed of light. He should have qualified that by stating, "in most cases" and/or "in a linear direction", because, of
course, there are modes of travel hundreds of times faster than the speed of light.

So sometimes things seem impossible only because we don't know 'the whole story'.

So, in my opinion there is a civilization on the Moon, the gravity on the Moon is at least 64% that of earths and there is a breathable atmosphere
which may be denser on the far side. I base this opinion on NAZA pictures of cities, constructs and mining operations on both the near side and far
side. We just don't know exactly how that can be and yet conform to our known laws of physics.

Thanks again for the thread, the information on Boscovich is very relevant and informative on the question of the lunar atmosphere cover-up.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I very much doubt that a Jesuit papal advisor in the 18th century was under duress to lie about the Moon from an evil agency called NASA from mid-20th
century

Oh please..

The Vatican is the biggest criminal organization on the planet. If you firmly believe in absolute power corrupting absolutely, you won't have a hard
time wrapping your mind around a church with absolute power doing as it pleases and funding these activities with the money of every industrialized
nation on the planet straight from each of those nation's central banks.

The Vatican manages to avoid suspicion in the mainstream because they're religious. That's it. They're religious, so they must be men of God.
Therefore, they're good well minded people. So in addition to the control of those central banks, basically endless amounts of funding power, they
get to avoid all questioning of involvement due to their religious exemption of suspicion in criminal events.

If you looked in to it more, you'd realize that yes, you are partially correct. A Jesuit papal adviser wasn't under duress from NASA, and wouldn't
have been even if they both existed in the same time period. Instead, NASA is under duress from absolute powers such as the Vatican. It's the other
way around from what you're thinking of.

If any of you really think NASA is evil by nature and they've gone rogue and have constructed this mass conspiracy plot to withhold disclosure of
alien life all by themselves without any higher ups' pressure, then you won't have trouble accepting the truth that the Vatican is the true power on
this planet.

I don't believe John Lear on a lot of things. I don't know if there's a breathable atmosphere on the Moon. I won't know that until I go up there
myself and take my helmet off. Since that'll never happen, I'll never know. But what I do know is that, what a mouthpiece for the biggest criminal
organization on the planet says, doesn't make what was said true.

please state, in specific terms, the following about the atmosphere on the moon;

does this atmosphere currently exist ?
what gasses (by molar content/volume) compose the atmosphere ?
what is the density of the atmosphere ?
what is the temperature of the atmosphere ?
does it have 6 layers like Earths atmosphere ?
what is the maximum altitude of the atmosphere ?
which gravitational forces keep the atmosphere in place ?
by "breathable" do you mean specifically breathable to humans, or earth based life forms ?

Hello, just to expand (I'm just a newbie here) I have heard of a physicist who is challenging the establishment, so to speak, of Einstein.

Consider, just as Newton revolutinized thought in his day, and Einstein made his mark as well...neither should be considered the 'be all and end
all' authority. I mean, discovery and new 'knowledge' march on.

I think, Einstein and his work can be thought of as another stone in the foundation of understanding. Remember, Einstein was not comfortable with the
concept of quantum physics, as I recall. Now, we're looking into 'string' theory, and beyond...concepts that would, if he were alive today, be
something that he MAY contribute to...maybe.

Back to my first paragraph, I have heard of research into the nature of the 'frequency' of matter, and how it relates to energy states...sorry, I
can't explain it better. Anyone heard of this?

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks BS. Good thread. We know that the cover up of the moon's breathable atmosphere goes way back in history. ....

Now with your help we have evidence that it went back as far as Boscovich which would place it in the middle 1700's.

No John, we don't have such evidence at all. You could only claim that if you (or any other observer who's not answering to NASA or Vatican)
PERFORMED AN OBSERVATION OF THE MOON THAT WOUL DEMOSNTRATE THE PRESENSE OF AIR.

You have a telescope, why don't you do this? Otherwise, I need to point out that myriad of amateur astronomers gazed at the Moon and absolutely
nobody saw an atmosphere there.

It seems as though throughout history there has been a vested interest by someone in keeping secret the civilization on the moon along
with its gravity and atmosphere.

As I said, the observations are too numerous for such secret to be kept.

Since neither you or I have ever been there or are unlikely to go in our lifetimes so its unlikely either of us will be able to prove our
stands.

It's about the fifth time I encourage you to dust off your telescope and do something, or simply post on astronomy forums enlisting the help of many
eager prying eyes. You don't do that John because you know the outcome.

You have some great theories, backed up with great mathematics and great laws of physics.

John, I don't have any "great theories" beyond a few comments at the level of freshman physics. That usually does the job of pointing out
implausiliby of your unproven claims.

But, so did Einstein when he proposed that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. He should have qualified that by stating, "in
most cases" and/or "in a linear direction", because, of course, there are modes of travel hundreds of times faster than the speed of
light.

Please forgive me, John, but you don't have any business advising the likes of Einstein on matters of physics. I haven't ever flown a plane; if I
were to start lecturing you on difficult topics in avionics, that would understandingly produce a similar comic effect.

So, in my opinion there is a civilization on the Moon, the gravity on the Moon is at least 64% that of earths and there is a breathable
atmosphere which may be denser on the far side.

It is my opinion that you can't back it up and it goes against basic physics.

John, please do the math drill I proposed to Zorgon -- take the revolution period of Apollo CSM, the orbit radius and calculate the g. It's a
refreshing experience. No calculus required, simple arithmetic.

I don't believe John Lear on a lot of things. I don't know if there's a breathable atmosphere on the Moon. I won't know that until I go up
there myself and take my helmet off. Since that'll never happen, I'll never know. But what I do know is that, what a mouthpiece for the biggest
criminal organization on the planet says, doesn't make what was said true.

Thanks for the post NOM. I know this is serious busniess so please excuse my black, irreverent, sarcastic sense of humor when I say that the above
paragraph had me falling of my chair laughing out loud.

I mean, I'm glad I could contribute to a laugh. But I don't know if it's that I don't believe you, if it's that I'll never go to the Moon, or if
it's that I think the Vatican controls the world that you think is funny.

I mean, I'm glad I could contribute to a laugh. But I don't know if it's that I don't believe you, if it's that I'll never go to the Moon, or if
it's that I think the Vatican controls the world that you think is funny.

Sorry NOM I should have made that clear. What was funny that you are stating the outright truth of the Vatican. BS was trying to portray the Church as
the fount of honesty and wisdom. Actually it was the way you stated it that appealed to my black sense of humor:

"But what I do know is that, what a mouthpiece for the biggest criminal organization on the planet says, doesn't make what was said true.'

Your comment about the atmosphere on the moon was well taken. The only difference between you and me if we get a chance to go to the moon is that I am
not even going to wear a helmut.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
I don't believe John Lear on a lot of things. I don't know if there's a breathable atmosphere on the Moon. I won't know that until I go up there
myself and take my helmet off. Since that'll never happen, I'll never know.

It is remarkable that you limit your conclusions to the things your uninstrumented sensory organs can feel. Like you take the helmet off on the Moon
and suffocate, with last thing going through your mind being "damn John Lear!".

Would you extend same kind of skepticism towards things you can't see with your eyes, such as viruses? Will you only believe in AIDS if you contract
it while having unprotected sex? There is no difference whatsoever between that and your "helmet" example.

But what I do know is that, what a mouthpiece for the biggest criminal organization on the planet says, doesn't make what was said
true.

Roger was not a mouthpiece but a genius scientist. He even laid foundations of atomic theory and somehow this didn't get suppressed.

Originally posted by johnlear
BS was trying to portray the Church as the fount of honesty and wisdom.

This is quite a disingenius statement on your part, John. I wrote about an outstanding scientist who did amazinf work in a few fields of human
knowledge. I referred to his work (published) but not to the Church as a source of scientific facts.

John, please do the math drill I proposed to Zorgon -- take the revolution period of Apollo CSM, the orbit radius and calculate the g. It's a
refreshing experience. No calculus required, simple arithmetic.

Thanks for carefully reading this, John.

Thanks for the post BS. I know how emotionally bound you are to your numbers and drawings and laws you assume to be inviolate.

When I say 'laws' what mean is "currently accepted scientific dogma" because it only represents what mainstream science thinks 'now'. Tomorrow
they may think different.

I invite you to continue wallowing in your mainstream scientific dogma as I can only imagine how warm and fuzzy it can be.

Oh, by the way. The revolution period of Apollo around the moon was one hour. Please don't get that confused with NAZA's published data.
Thanks.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It is remarkable that you limit your conclusions to the things your uninstrumented sensory organs can feel.

Why is that remarkable? Am I trying to convince others? Or am I trying to convince myself?

If I'm trying to convince others, then I guess I'd have to give data and evidence.

If I'm trying to convince myself, what better to rely on than my own senses and experiences? Isn't that the best proof when trying to prove
something to yourself?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Will you only believe in AIDS if you contract it while having unprotected sex?

No, but I will be skeptical about the "facts" of AIDS and it's origins. Personal experience can answer those skepticisms, but I'm struggling to
answer your question completely because it was a bad comparison.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is no difference whatsoever between that and your "helmet" example.

Yes there is. Whether or not the Moon has an atmosphere and whether or not AIDS exists are two very different things.

AIDS exists. No one doubts that. There are questions about it's origins and other such "facts", but it's existence isn't challenged.

The existence of a lunar atmosphere is up for debate.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Roger was not a mouthpiece but a genius scientist. He even laid foundations of atomic theory and somehow this didn't get suppressed.

And the atomic theory has what to do with lunar atmosphere's and alien life?

Anyone working for the Vatican is a mouth piece, and/or, controlled. Whether they know it or not, I don't know. But it seems you have this sparkly
feel good do right image of the Vatican. That seems to be interfering with your judgment. Not to mention you seem to be looking for any piece of the
puzzle that fits your tune simply to confront John Lear. Doesn't matter where it came from, as long as it agrees with you. That coupled with your
image of the Vatican makes your assessment of Roger's conclusions flawed.

I'll stress again that I don't agree with Mr. Lear on a lot of accounts, but that comes from personal opinion and lack of experience in the fields
he specializes in. But I'm not going to let my opinion and lack of experience convince me that something such as a lunar atmosphere is impossible.

If you had told early human life, such as the Neanderthals, that the Earth, as big as it may seem, was not even a tiny dot on a page of all that
exists, and we are merely a small mass floating through a large vast endless black space called the Universe, would they have believed you?

My point is, some things seem impossible, but you need only to look around at some of the things we know to exist to truly be amazed at how that's
even possible. Simply because we don't know the truth yet doesn't make it impossible.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.